Property Law Library
Boundaries and adverse possession
Deeds, plans and boundary features
Presumptions
Boundary agreements
Adverse possession
Adverse possession and Pye v Graham
Land Registration Act 2002
Consent
Acknowledgement of title
Estoppel
Highways
Human rights
Miscellaneous
Multiple parcels
Criminal offence
Experts
Party walls
Tidal waters
T-marks
Trees and hedges
Business lease renewal
Telecommunications Code
Does the Act apply?
Contracting out
Surrender
Section 25 notices
Counternotice
Section 26 requests
Ground (b)
Ground (c)
Ground (f)
Ground (g)
Rent
New lease terms
Easements on renewal
Compensation
Procedure
Insolvency of landlord
Registration of claim
Reform of Part II
Commonhold
Co-ownership and estoppel
Co-ownership disputes - Stack v Dowden
Partnership
Equitable accounting
Pallant v Morgan
Proprietary estoppel
Yeomans Row v Cobbe
Yeomans and s2 of 1989 Act
Assurance and reliance - Thorner
Laches and estoppel
Satisfying the equity
Tax
Trusts of Land etc Act 1996
Easements
Abandonment
Commons and rights of way
Construing rights of way
Extinguisment
Gardens
Extent of grant
Illegality
Implied and s62
Increasing the burden
Parking
Prescription
Profits a prendre
Repair to right of way
Registration of easements
Right to light
Excluding the right
Injunction?
Damages
Substantial interference
Landlord and tenant (general)
Assignment
Break clauses
Notices
Material compliance and breaches
Miscellaneous
Repayment of rent
Yielding up
Chattels and fixtures
Business rates
Consents
Tenant's request
Landlord's response
Reasonable refusal
Conditions
Alterations
Underletting
Construction of lease terms
Dilapidations
Breach
Landlord's obligation
Schedules and notices
Standard of repair
Damages and s18 cap
Miscellaneous
Discrimination
Disclaimer
Distress
Estoppel
Forfeiture
Rent claims
Other cases
Section 146 notices
Waiver
Registration gap
Court procedure
Relief
Unlawful forfeiture
Law reform
Goods left on the premises
Indemnity
Insolvency
L & T (Covenants) Act 1995
Licences
Management regulations
Merger
Nuisance
Notices - service
Pre-emption clause
Rent
Rent review
Construction
Presumption of reality
Time of essence
Rent review notices
Arbitration
Rent suspension
Restraint of trade
Service charges and insurance (general)
Set-off
Subletting, sharing possession or occupation
Surrender by operation of law
Surrender and re-grant
Tenancy at will
Uncertain term
Unlawful eviction
Long leases
Acquisition orders
Enfranchisement
House?
Forms
Qualifications
Notices
Miscellaneous
Enfranchisement proceedings
Terms of the transfer
Valuation (deferment rates and hope value)
Valuation (other points)
Forfeiture restrictions
Ground rent notices
Management
Right to manage
Manager under 1987 Act
Part 1 of the 1954 Act
Right of first refusal
Developers beware
Service and administration charges and insurance
Construction of the lease
Statutory control - reasonableness
Service charge demands
Administration charges
Summary of leaseholder's rights
Insurance
Managing agents
Reserve funds
The 18-month rule
Consultation of tenants
Compromise of service charge dispute
Legal costs
Transfer to First-tier Tribunal
Variation of lease terms
Mobile homes and caravans
Mortgages
Negligent valuation
Bank all monies charge
Charging orders
Civil Recovery Order
Consumer Credit Act 1974
Consumer Credit Act 2006
Clog on the equity of redemeption
Facility agreement
Forgery
Interest
Limitation and shortfall
Marshalling
Misrepresentation and affirmation
Money claim
Mortgage indemnity policies
Enforcement
Mortgage possession
Costs
Mortgage arrears protocol
Time to sell
Miscellaneous
Enforcement
Negligent financial advice
Priorities
Proving the loan
Regulation
Sale
Effect of sale on possession
Duties on sale
Orders for sale
Sale and leaseback
Solicitor's breach of trust and negligence
Subrogation
Terms
Tenants of mortgagees
Undue influence
Unfair contract terms
Nuisance and trespass
Abating the nuisance
Damages - account of profits
Damages - human rights
Defects in neighbouring property
Defences
Fire
Noise
Self-help
Trees
Trespass
Water
Planning
Appeals procedure
Change of use
Children
Compensation
Compulsory purchase
Conditions
Development
Definition
Development plans
Design and access statements
General permitted development
Lawful development certificates
Environmental
Enforcement
Enforcement notices
Deceit
Deemed permission
Estoppel
User for 4 or 10 years
Stop notices
Judicial review
Localism
Material considerations
Permission
Policy consultation
National policy
Property litigation and ADR
Automatic stay
Business leases
Compromise
Costs
Damages in lieu of injunction
Declaration
Expert evidence
Harassment by proceedings
Property Chamber
Land Registry Adjudicator
Residential Property Tribunal
Mediation
Party wall awards
Tomlin orders
Unilateral notices
Property transactions
Commercial lease code
Contaminated land
Contract
Deeds
Defective Premises Act
Deposits
Electronic Communications Code
EPCs in Commercial Properties
Execution
Failure to complete
Gifts of land
Guarantees and indemnities
Land registration
Local government
Misrepresentation and answers to enquiries
Money laundering
Notice to complete
Options
Overage
Planning obligations
Perpetuities
Positive covenants
Rectification
Rent charges
Searches and enquiries
Solicitors
Title
Undertakings
Unjust enrichment
Vendor's lien
Writing - s2 of 1989 Act
Possession claims
Protection from Eviction Act
Trespassers
Bankruptcy
Disability discrimination defences
Human Rights Act defences
Weaver
Procedure
Orders for possession
Costs
Warrants
Suspending warrants
Setting aside
Public access to land
Commons
Right to roam
Town and village greens
The main cases
Cancellation of registration
Inhabitants of locality
User as of right
Residential tenancies
Anti-social behaviour
Asbo or injunction
Family Intervention Tenancies
Injunctions under 1996 Act
Possession orders
Committal
Assured tenancies
Assured shortholds
Section 20 Notices
Section 21 Notices
Boats
Housing disrepair claims
Liability
Damages for disrepair
Costs in disrepair cases
Homeless persons
Human rights
Introductory tenancies
Licences - Bruton Tenancies
Neighbouring Noises
Notice to quit
Proceeds of crime
Reform
Rent Act 1977
Rent books
Right to buy
Secure tenancies
Tenancy deposit
Tenant's notice to quit
Tolerated trespassers
Unfair contract terms
Unlawful eviction
Restrictive covenants
Benefit of covenants
Burden
Competition
Consent to development
Enforcing covenants
Interpretation - breach
Modification and discharge
Overage
Variation under s610 of 1985 Act
Monthly Update
Boundaries and adverse possession.
Business lease renewal.
Co-ownership and estoppel.
Easements.
Landlord and tenant (general).
Long leases.
Mobile homes.
Mortgages.
Nuisance and trespass.
Planning.
Property litigation and ADR.
Property transactions.
Public access to land.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.
Free summaries
Property Mediation
Property Mediators
Alan Langleben
Beverly-Ann Rogers
David Blackburn
David Small
Gary Webber
Jacky Lewis
Jacqui Joyce
Jeremy Manuel
Jonathan Arkush
John de Waal
Louisa Weinstein
Marc Beaumont
Mark Hacking
Mark Summerfield
Martin Banham-Hall
Martyn Liberson
Paul Randolph
Paul Newman
Sara Benbow
Simon Williams
Stephen Shaw
Stephanie Tozer
Timothy Russ
Tactics and strategy at mediation
Training
Conferences and courses
In-house courses
Co-ownership
Drafting
Covenants
Dilapidation claims
Easements
Housing disrepair.
Insolvency
Managing Leases
Misrepresentation and answers to enquiries
Mixed Use Properties
Mortgages
Overage
Remedies in property disputes
Residential leases
Restrictive covenants
Sale Contracts
Section 2 of the 1989 Act
Twenty Topical Traps
Unreasonable refusal to consent
Information
Contact
Barristers
Solicitors
Experts
Books
Boundaries and party walls.
Commonhold.
Commercial leases.
Commons and village greens.
Conveyancing and property development.
Disrepair.
Easements.
Environment.
Farms
Housing
Long leases.
Mediation.
Mortgage.
Nuisance.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.
Service charges.
SDLT and VAT
Links
Cases and articles
Civil procedure
Contaminated land
Housing forms
Land Registration
Law reform
Neighbour and boundary disputes
Organisations
Professional associations
Publishers on-line
Residential landlord and tenant
Scotland
Statutes and SI's
Join HERE
Members Login
Download update
My Details
My Invoices
My Subscriptions
My CPD
Instructions
Logout
Home Page
>
Property Law Library
>
Co-ownership and estoppel
>
Satisfying the equity
Home Page
Contact
Editorial Team
Section Contents
Co-ownership disputes - Stack v Dowden
Partnership
Equitable accounting
Pallant v Morgan
Proprietary estoppel
Laches and estoppel
Satisfying the equity
Tax
Trusts of Land etc Act 1996
Print Version
Current page
Satisfying the equity
This page contains details of two cases:
Jennings v Rice
(2003); and
Powell v Benney
.
Basic principle
Jennings v Rice
[2002] EWCA 159
Facts
C worked for many years for an elderly lady for nothing on a promise that "he would be alright" and "this will all be yours one day". On the full facts the judge found that there was an estoppel and awarded him £200,000 based on the cost of care. He refused to award the full value of the house and furniture (£435,000) because he thought that would be excessive. C appealed.
Decision
In dismissing the appeal the CA discussed the principles to be applied when deciding how to satisfy the equity. In particular, the principle of proportionality applies. The end result must be a just one having regard to the assumption made by the party asserting the estoppel and the detriment which he has experience.
"The essence of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is to do what is necessary to avoid an unconscionable result, and a disproportionate remedy cannot be the right way of going about that". (Robert Walker J, para 56)
Remedial discretion
Bargain and non-bargain cases
Powell v Benney
[2007] EWCA Civ 1283
Summary
In exercising its discretion in this case, where the claimants alleged a constructive trust, the court ordered the return of the money expended by them rather than an interest in the property.
Facts
1992: The Claimants (C's) befriend the deceased (when he was alive!). He owns two properties.
1993: C's look after the deceased and take care of his day to day affairs. Deceased says he will leave his properties to the C's
1994: Deceased offers C's the use of his properties. They were untidy and run-down and Claimants had to de-clutter them.
2000: Deceased writes out a note saying that he is leaving his properties to Claimants. They do some further work to the properties
2003: Deceased dies. C's invite his personal representative to transfer the properties to them, but after taking legal advice she refuses
2004: C's commence legal proceedings claiming that the properties were held in trust for them by way of constructive trust/proprietary estoppel.
First instance
The trial judge considered
Yaxley v Gotts
[2000] Ch 162;
Gillet v Holt
[2001] Ch 210 and
Jennings v Rice
(above)and considered that not only was detriment an essential ingredient of proprietary estoppel but that there had to be a causal link between the assurance relied on and the detriment asserted and that the detriment alleged must be pleaded and proved. On the facts he considered that to receive the two properties worth £280,000 was out of all proportion to the detriment the Claimants had suffered, and that justice would be done if the Claimants were recompensed £20,000 to reflect the monies they expended and the time they spent in the properties. The Claimants appealed.
Held on appeal
The judge had clearly rejected the constructive trust claim, and had not misdirected himself on detriment. Although it was not particularly clear how he had arrived at the figure of £20,000, the Court would not interfere.
The case principally involved the scope of the remedial discretion in proprietary estoppel. In
Jennings v Rice
it was noted that Robert Walker LJ had divided the range of possible situations into two classes:
(1) the bargain category, in which the relief should vindicate the claimant�s expectation, and
(2) the non-bargain category, in which relief is arrived at by the exercise of a wider judgmental discretion, influenced by a number of factors including the claimant's expectation, but also proportionality with his detriment.
Here, insofar as it was contended that the claim fell within the bargain category, it required that the claimant's expectations and the element of detriment be defined with reasonable clarity. That was not the case. There was no bargain or consensual arrangement and the deceased did not require the Claimants to do the detrimental acts upon which they now rely. That was a matter for them.
Comment
In short, what this case serves to highlight is the nexus between assurance and detriment where the claimant's case turns on bargain. If the claimant expects the relief to vindicate his bargain he will need to prove expectation and detriment. Otherwise, he will be left to the general discretion of the court in finding the minimum equity to do justice.
Back to top
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:
Options
Free Summaries
£nil
Full Membership
From £207 + VAT (1 year)